Why does adding versioning to a webApi project removes number from the controller path name?
Replication steps :
Create a fresh .net6 project. And rename WeatherForecastController to WeatherForecast2Controller.
Run app and call https://localhost:x/WeatherForecast2 (where x is your port)
Observe valid/expected results
Add the below code in program.cs/startup
services.AddApiVersioning(config =>
{
config.AssumeDefaultVersionWhenUnspecified = true;
config.DefaultApiVersion = new ApiVersion(1, 0);
config.ReportApiVersions = true;
config.ApiVersionReader = ApiVersionReader.Combine(
new QueryStringApiVersionReader("version"),
new HeaderApiVersionReader("x-version"));
config.UseApiBehavior = false;
});
Run app and call https://localhost:x/WeatherForecast2 (where x is your port).
Step 5 will return a 404 not found error.
However if you call https://localhost:x/WeatherForecast. It will work.
So why does adding versioning, change the url path?
It's not entirely clear if you are using <= 5.0 or 6.0+.
History
The reason this behavior happens is because the only logical way to group controllers together is by their names. A controller name, therefore, becomes very important. This is problematic in code because two or more controllers in the same namespace cannot have the same type name. The assumption and long-defined convention has been to allow ASP.NET to remove the Controller suffix and then remove any remaining numbers. This allows ValuesController, Values2Controller and Values3Controller to all map to the logical controller name Values by default. In most cases, that's probably want someone wants. If API Versioning doesn't do this, then there is no way to collate all API versions together for an API.
Contrary to popular belief, route templates are not considered for grouping controllers (e.g. APIs). There is too much ambiguity as to how a template can map to code. Take the simplest example of two different versions of the same API with different route templates: V1 = values/{id}, V2 = values/{id:int}. These are semantically equivalent, but not the same. API Versioning does not try to understand what the route template means nor compare their equivalence. It can easily get a lot more complicated; especially, for overlapping route templates. For example, should order/{oid}/customer/{cid} be part of the Orders API or the Customer API? Only the service author knows for sure.
Regression
In the 5.0 release, a regression was accidentally introduced due to an over-optimization. The controller name is used in two places: the actual name of the controller and the name used to group controllers. It seems reasonable they'd be the same and why normalize (e.g. trim suffixes) more than necessary? It seemed like a good idea, but it caused unexpected behavior - such as this one. There are also legitimate reasons to have a number in the name of a controller; for example, S3Controller.
Fix
In library versions <= 5.0, developers had no control over the behavior of how names were normalized. In 5.1 and 6.0+, this is now exposed via the IControllerNameConvention service, which has two methods: one for normalizing the controller name and one for normalizing the group name. The following implementations are provided out of the box as properties on ControllerNameConvention:
Default: The default, out-of-the-box conventions
Original: The original names without any normalization (could result in the wrong behavior)
Grouped: The group name is normalized, but the controller name is unmodified
If none of those work for you, then you can create your own custom convention. In 5.1 this is wired up via ApiVersioningOptions.ControllerNameConvention, while in 6.0+ IControllerNameConvention is a transient service in the DI container.
Workaround
There are two ways you can workaround the problem using the current version you are leveraging:
Explicit Route Template
If you omit using the [controller] token, the routing problem will be resolved; for example, api/weatherforecast. You appear to have already discovered this.
Explicit Controller Name
The controller name is derived from a convention, even without API Versioning. It was understood this behavior could be a problem so API Versioning provides a way to explicit set it with the ControllerNameAttribute.
[ControllerName("WeatherForecast")]
[Route("api/[controller]")] // ← expands to 'api/WeatherForecast'
public class WeatherForecast2Controller : ControllerBase { }
Edge Case
This will solve the routing issues, but it will not fix the controller name issue. That should only matter if you are planning on documenting your API with OpenAPI (formerly Swagger). For example, S3Controller will simply show up as S, even though the route might be api/s3.
I think that your controller may have issues, as I used your AddApiVersioning code and it works for me. To avoid the conflicting action names, you can two different controllers.
ApiController
namespace WebApiVersioningApp.Controllers;
[ApiVersion("1.0")]
[ApiVersion("2.0")]
[ApiController]
[Route("api/Version2")]
public class Version2Controller : ControllerBase
{
[MapToApiVersion("1.0")]
[HttpGet(Name = "GetWeatherForecastV1")]
public string GetV1()
{
return "Version 1";
}
[MapToApiVersion("2.0")]
[HttpGet(Name = "GetWeatherForecastV2")]
public string GetV2()
{
return "Version 2";
}
}
Program:
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);
// Add services to the container.
builder.Services.AddControllers();
// Learn more about configuring Swagger/OpenAPI at https://aka.ms/aspnetcore/swashbuckle
builder.Services.AddEndpointsApiExplorer();
builder.Services.AddSwaggerGen(c =>
c.ResolveConflictingActions(apiDescriptions => apiDescriptions.First())
);
// Versioning setup
builder.Services.AddApiVersioning(o =>
{
o.ReportApiVersions = true;
o.AssumeDefaultVersionWhenUnspecified = true;
o.DefaultApiVersion = new ApiVersion(1, 0);
o.ApiVersionReader = ApiVersionReader.Combine(
new QueryStringApiVersionReader("version"),
new HeaderApiVersionReader("x-version"));
o.UseApiBehavior = false;
});
var app = builder.Build();
// Configure the HTTP request pipeline.
if (app.Environment.IsDevelopment())
{
app.UseSwagger();
app.UseSwaggerUI();
}
app.UseHttpsRedirection();
app.UseAuthorization();
app.MapControllers();
app.Run();
Hope this works for you.
Related
We have ASP.NET MVC 5 project, that we have plans to migrate to ASP.NET Core 3. Currently I gather dependency list and their equivalent replacements on the new new platform.
We are using MvcCodeRouting package to separate different workflows between different C# namespaces as was described in https://maxtoroq.github.io/2013/02/aspnet-mvc-workflow-per-controller.html.
Now with new platform in place, we need something similar. As last resort we could just specify all our namespaces in routing table, but I'd rather not to do so.
Any suggestions on how accomplish similar behavior?
EDIT:
I think with example it would be more understandable what I'm trying to accomplish.
We have following structure of controllers:
- Namespace1
-- Workflow1Controller.Index/Edit/Action
-- Workflow2Controller.Index/Edit/Action
-- Workflow3Controller.Index/Edit/Action
- Namespace2
-- Workflow4Controller.Index/Edit/Action
Workflow1Controller code:
namespace RootProjectNamespace.Controllers.Namespace1
{
class Workflow1Controller : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index() {}
// and so on
}
}
Appropriate Views are placed in similar manner.
And using MvcCodeRouting we able to create Action urls by following:
Url.Action("Namespace1.Workflow1Controller", "Index") // Creates -> ~/Namespace1/Workflow1Controller/Index
Url.Action("Namespace2.Workflow4Controller", "Action") // Creates -> ~/Namespace2/Workflow4Controller/Index
Is there possibility to achieve similar in .net core without explicit hardcoding routes in route table?
As an start point for your solution, you can create a custom IApplicationModelConvention and change the routing to use namespace in the routing.
There's an example in docs showing how you can do this. To learn more you can take a look at this great docs article: Work with the application model in ASP.NET Core.
To do so, first create the following NamespaceRoutingConvention class:
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ApplicationModels;
using System.Linq;
public class NamespaceRoutingConvention : IApplicationModelConvention
{
public void Apply(ApplicationModel application)
{
foreach (var controller in application.Controllers)
{
var hasAttributeRouteModels = controller.Selectors
.Any(selector => selector.AttributeRouteModel != null);
if (!hasAttributeRouteModels)
{
controller.Selectors[0].AttributeRouteModel = new AttributeRouteModel()
{
Template = controller.ControllerType.Namespace.Replace('.', '/')
+ "/[controller]/[action]/{id?}"
};
}
}
}
}
Then in startup, register the convention like this:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddMvc(options => {
options.Conventions.Add(new NamespaceRoutingConvention());
});
}
Then you can browse:
http://localhost:xxxxx/SampleProject/Controllers/Home/Index
I have recently come across this issue.
An MVC .NET Framework project I had been working on needed migrating to .NET Core, however it was made up from lots of smaller assemblies (DLLs), each containing different parts of the overall codebase.
MvcCodeRouting was used to implement this, and provided a way for the assemblies to be utilised, routed, and also provided the ability for the central (core) project to utilise the relevant views, stored within the assemblies.
I have found that the .NET Core "Application Parts" feature seems to fulfill most of these points, with it having the ability for projects to be seperated between different assemblies, imported into a main project, and utilised.
The only real functional difference in using this method is that each "Application Part" generates two assemblies instead of one, with one containing the controllers and module logic, whilst the other contains the (Razor) views (if the specific module has any).
I'm still experimenting with this, however I thought I'd add this here for the sake of completeness.
Below are some useful links to documentation regarding this feature:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/mvc/advanced/app-parts?view=aspnetcore-1.0#sample-generic-controller-feature
This is the main documentation for the feature within the ASP.NET Core documentation.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/razor-pages/ui-class?view=aspnetcore-1.0&tabs=visual-studio
This tutorial demonstrated creating an assembly containing only Razor Views, if some of the modules require no logic.
Other than changing startup.cs whenever a new version is built,
services.AddApiVersioning(config =>
{
config.DefaultApiVersion = new ApiVersion(1, 0);
});
is there a way of specifying that the "default version" is the latest version, without specifying what that version is? e.g. some way of saying
config.DefaultApiVersion = new ApiVersionLatest();
. . . or does this fly in the face of all that is considered holy by the RESTApi gods?
Thanks
The correct answer depends a little bit about what you expect to achieve. The DefaultApiVersion only comes into play when no other API version is available. API versioning does not have a concept of "no API version". API version-neutral means that an API accepts any and all API versions, including none at all. The default API version can also be thought of as the initial API version.
Here's a few scenarios where the DefaultAPiVersion comes into play:
A controller has no attribution or conventions applied
Selection of possible API versions yields no results
It sounds like you are interested in configuring the most current API version in a single place. You can use the DefaultApiVersion to do this, but only if the controller has no other attribution or conventions. If an API doesn't carry forward, you will have to explicitly decorate the controller with an attribute or convention that indicates the legacy API version to exclude it from the latest version. While this is possible, it's hard to follow IMO.
A better approach would probably to use an extension that that describes the behavior you want. For example:
[AttributeUsage( AttributeTargets.Class, AllowMultiple = false )]
public sealed class LatestApiVersionAttribute : ApiVersionAttribute, IApiVersionProvider
{
public LatestApiVersionAttribute() : base( new ApiVersion( 2, 0 ) ) { }
}
Now you can apply this to all your controllers a la:
[LatestApiVersion]
public class MyController : ControllerBase
{
// ommitted
}
This gives you the chance to manage the latest API version is single place. You might also consider using conventions so you don't even need the custom attribute. Attributes and conventions can be combined.
#spender does mention using a custom IApiVersionSelector; however, selection currently only comes into play when no API version has been specified. To enable this type of configuration, set things up as:
services.AddApiVersioning( options =>
{
options.ApiVersionSelector = new CurrentImplementationApiVersionSelector( options );
options.AssumeDefaultVersionWhenUnspecified = true;
}
This will enable clients that do not specify an API version to always forward to the most recent version of the requested API. A client can still explicitly ask for a specific version, including the latest.
I hope that helps.
I'd like to prepare my .NET Core Web API project so that multiple versions of the API can be managed and documented, according to the REST services standards.
I'm using .NET Core 2.1 with NSwag (v11.18.2). I also installed the Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Versioning NuGet package.
I already searched with Google for some configuration examples, but the only useful link I found is this.
I'm now able to get Swagger pages for both API versions but with some problems:
Please note that none of the last config settings (Title, Description, etc.) takes effect on any of the 2 routes. It only works if I add them on each of the individual configuration. So I'd also like to know if it possible to avoid that, since the general configuration of the API can be version indipendent (title, description and so on...).
Since the issue with NSwag and Microsoft API Versioning package discussed in the above link, was opened 2-3 months (and NSwag versions too) ago, I'd like to know if it is now truly fixed and in this case, which is the right configuration to set.
Although the version is explicit in the configuration of the controllers, it is still required as a mandatory input parameter of the controller methods and of course I don't want that! See image:
So, my actual configuration, by following that example, is looking like this:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddMvc();
services.AddApiVersioning(options =>
{
options.AssumeDefaultVersionWhenUnspecified = true;
options.DefaultApiVersion = new ApiVersion(1, 0);
options.ReportApiVersions = true;
});
}
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IHostingEnvironment env)
{
app.UseSwaggerWithApiExplorer(config =>
{
config.GeneratorSettings.OperationProcessors.TryGet<ApiVersionProcessor>().IncludedVersions = new[] { "1.0" };
config.SwaggerRoute = "v1.0.json";
});
app.UseSwaggerWithApiExplorer(config =>
{
config.GeneratorSettings.OperationProcessors.TryGet<ApiVersionProcessor>().IncludedVersions = new[] { "2.0" };
config.SwaggerRoute = "v2.0.json";
});
app.UseSwaggerUi3(typeof(Startup).GetTypeInfo().Assembly, config =>
{
config.SwaggerRoutes.Add(new SwaggerUi3Route("v1.0", "/v1.0.json"));
config.SwaggerRoutes.Add(new SwaggerUi3Route("v2.0", "/v2.0.json"));
config.GeneratorSettings.Title = "My API";
config.GeneratorSettings.Description = "API functionalities.";
config.GeneratorSettings.DefaultUrlTemplate = "{v:apiVersion}/{controller}/{action}/{id?}";
config.GeneratorSettings.DefaultPropertyNameHandling = PropertyNameHandling.CamelCase
});
}
And these are my actual controllers:
[ApiController]
[ApiVersion("1.0")]
[Route("api/v{version:apiVersion}/[controller]/[action]")]
[SwaggerTag("Test1", Description = "Core operations on machines (v1.0).")]
public class MachinesController : Controller
{
[HttpGet("{id}")]
[ProducesResponseType((int)HttpStatusCode.OK)]
public async Task<ActionResult<Machine>> Get(int id)
{
return await ...
}
}
[ApiController]
[ApiVersion("2.0")]
[Route("api/v{version:apiVersion}/[controller]/[action]")]
[SwaggerTag("Test2", Description = "Core operations on machines (v2.0).")]
public class MachinesController : Controller
{
[HttpGet("{id}")]
[ProducesResponseType((int)HttpStatusCode.OK)]
public async Task<ActionResult<Machine>> Get(int id)
{
return await ...
}
}
They are ignored in the middleware because they are inferred from the settings or do not apply for api explorer (template). However title and description should work...
Please create an issue with the specific issue and a repro, also check out the existing tests in the repo
Fixed with v11.18.3
I believe starting in NSwag 12.0.0, there is significantly improved support for the API Explorer. It's important that the complementary API Explorer package for API versioning is also referenced so that the proper information is provided to NSwag.
The Swagger sample application provided by API Versioning uses Swashbuckle, but the setup will be very similar to NSwag. You can use the IApiVersionDescriptionProvider service to enumerate all of the API versions defined in your application. That should significantly simplify your NSwag configuration.
You're versioning by URL segment; therefore, to address Problem 3 you simply need to configure the API Explorer a la:
services.AddVersionedApiExplorer( options => options.SubstituteApiVersionInUrl = true );
This will replace the {version} route parameter in the route template with the corresponding API version value and remove the API version parameter from the API description.
We are using Web API 2 on our project with Swagger. My problem is that when Microsoft.AspNet.WebApi.Versioning is applied as following:
the Swagger UI is ignoring the fact that now I have version in my API which needs to be provided.
I looked at several examples but none seem to address this issue in a satisfying manner.
How do I force Swagger to let me add the API version or just add the version number automatically to the URL?
Swagger configuration so far:
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration
.EnableSwagger(c =>
{
c.SingleApiVersion("v1", "MoovShack.ServerApi");
// If your API has multiple versions, use "MultipleApiVersions" instead of "SingleApiVersion".
// In this case, you must provide a lambda that tells Swashbuckle which actions should be
// included in the docs for a given API version. Like "SingleApiVersion", each call to "Version"
// returns an "Info" builder so you can provide additional metadata per API version.
//
//c.MultipleApiVersions(
// (apiDesc, targetApiVersion) => ResolveVersionSupportByRouteConstraint(apiDesc, targetApiVersion),
// (vc) =>
// {
// vc.Version("v2", "Swashbuckle Dummy API V2");
// vc.Version("v1", "Swashbuckle Dummy API V1");
// });
c.OperationFilter<MoovShackTokenHeaderParameter>();
})
.EnableSwaggerUi(c =>
{
// If your API has multiple versions and you've applied the MultipleApiVersions setting
// as described above, you can also enable a select box in the swagger-ui, that displays
// a discovery URL for each version. This provides a convenient way for users to browse documentation
// for different API versions.
//
//c.EnableDiscoveryUrlSelector();
});
You can see that so far MultipleApiVersions are disabled - from one good reason as it doesn't produce any results. Especially since I am not sure what "ResolveVersionSupportByRouteConstraint" should do.
I also read that "EnableDiscoveryUrlSelector" has some kind of impact but I am also not sure if that applies to my case. When I enabled it, nothing happened.
We use it like this in our project and swagger recognizes it and it looks fine
[ApiVersion( "1.0" )]
[Route("api/v{version:apiVersion}/[controller]")]
public class SomeControlelr: Controller{
[HttpGet("", Name = "Someaction"), MapToApiVersion("1.0")]
public async Task<IActionResult> SomeAction(string someParameter)
I'm developing an MVC API in a separate class library. The API methods use attribute routing. The API will be used by other MVC applications (not built by me).
The main MVC application will reference my library assembly and call AddMvc() / UseMvc() in it's own startup class. It will be able to set the root API url's for my API library dynamically (from configuration or options setup delegate), so that it can make sure there are no conflicts with it's own routes, which can use either attribute routing or centralized routing.
So let's say my API library has a product/{id} route. The main application should be able to choose any route prefix, like api/product/{id} or some/other/prefix/product/{id}.
At startup, MVC will discover all controllers/routes in all referenced assemblies, and it will also discover and register my API library routes, but only on the hardcoded product/{id} route without any prefix.
I've been trying to get MVC to register the routes with a prefix, but so far no success. The main application will call custom AddMyApi() / UseMyApi() config methods, so I can do configuration / setup for my library. Some of the things I tried:
Mapping
app.Map("/custom-prefix", api =>
{
api.UseMvc();
});
This will result in duplicate routes for both custom-prefix/product/{id} and product/{id}.
Route Convention
Based on http://www.strathweb.com/2016/06/global-route-prefix-with-asp-net-core-mvc-revisited/
services.AddMvc(options =>
{
options.Conventions.Insert(0, new RouteConvention(new RouteAttribute("custom-prefix")));
});
It looks like this will not work because the options will be overwritten by the main application's call to AddMvc(), or the other way around, depending which gets called first.
Custom route attribute
A custom route attribute based on IRouteTemplateProvider on the Controller classes will not work because I need the prefix injected from an options class, and attributes do not support constructor injection.
Postpone discovery of routes
Based on http://www.strathweb.com/2015/04/asp-net-mvc-6-discovers-controllers/
I've added [NonController] to the library controllers to prevent them being discovered at the main application's startup. However I've not been able to add them later, and also I suppose I will run into the same problem of the main application overwriting the MVC options again.
Areas
I can't use areas, because the main application may decide to run the API from the root (without prefix).
So I'm stuck as to how to solve this problem. Any help is appreciated.
I believe a convention is the right approach here and the bit you are missing is just providing the proper extension method for your library to be registered within MVC.
Start by creating a convention that will add a prefix to all controllers that pass a certain selector.
It is based on one I wrote for adding culture prefixes, but the idea is very similar to the article you linked.
Basically it will either update any existing AttributeRouteModel or add a new one if none is found.
This would be an example of such a convention:
public class ApiPrefixConvention: IApplicationModelConvention
{
private readonly string prefix;
private readonly Func<ControllerModel, bool> controllerSelector;
private readonly AttributeRouteModel onlyPrefixRoute;
private readonly AttributeRouteModel fullRoute;
public ApiPrefixConvention(string prefix, Func<ControllerModel, bool> controllerSelector)
{
this.prefix = prefix;
this.controllerSelector = controllerSelector;
// Prepare AttributeRouteModel local instances, ready to be added to the controllers
// This one is meant to be combined with existing route attributes
onlyPrefixRoute = new AttributeRouteModel(new RouteAttribute(prefix));
// This one is meant to be added as the route for api controllers that do not specify any route attribute
fullRoute = new AttributeRouteModel(
new RouteAttribute("api/[controller]"));
}
public void Apply(ApplicationModel application)
{
// Loop through any controller matching our selector
foreach (var controller in application.Controllers.Where(controllerSelector))
{
// Either update existing route attributes or add a new one
if (controller.Selectors.Any(x => x.AttributeRouteModel != null))
{
AddPrefixesToExistingRoutes(controller);
}
else
{
AddNewRoute(controller);
}
}
}
private void AddPrefixesToExistingRoutes(ControllerModel controller)
{
foreach (var selectorModel in controller.Selectors.Where(x => x.AttributeRouteModel != null).ToList())
{
// Merge existing route models with the api prefix
var originalAttributeRoute = selectorModel.AttributeRouteModel;
selectorModel.AttributeRouteModel =
AttributeRouteModel.CombineAttributeRouteModel(onlyPrefixRoute, originalAttributeRoute);
}
}
private void AddNewRoute(ControllerModel controller)
{
// The controller has no route attributes, lets add a default api convention
var defaultSelector = controller.Selectors.First(s => s.AttributeRouteModel == null);
defaultSelector.AttributeRouteModel = fullRoute;
}
}
Now, if this was all part of an app you are writing instead of a library, you would just register it as:
services.AddMvc(opts =>
{
var prefixConvention = new ApiPrefixConvention("api/", (c) => c.ControllerType.Namespace == "WebApplication2.Controllers.Api");
opts.Conventions.Insert(0, prefixConvention);
});
However since you are providing a library, what you want is to provide an extension method like AddMyLibrary("some/prefix") that will take care of adding this convention and any other setup like registering required services.
So you can write an extension method for IMvcBuilder and update the MvcOptions inside that method. The nice thing is that since is an extension of IMvcBuilder, it will always be called after the default AddMvc():
public static IMvcBuilder AddMyLibrary(this IMvcBuilder builder, string prefix = "api/")
{
// instantiate the convention with the right selector for your library.
// Check for namespace, marker attribute, name pattern, whatever your prefer
var prefixConvention = new ApiPrefixConvention(prefix, (c) => c.ControllerType.Namespace == "WebApplication2.Controllers.Api");
// Insert the convention within the MVC options
builder.Services.Configure<MvcOptions>(opts => opts.Conventions.Insert(0, prefixConvention));
// perform any extra setup required by your library, like registering services
// return builder so it can be chained
return builder;
}
Then you would ask users of your library to include it within their app as in:
services.AddMvc().AddMyLibrary("my/api/prefix/");
//Try this Reference enter link description here
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IHostingEnvironment env)
{
app.UsePathBase("/Api/v/00");
app.Map("/api/v/0", api =>
{
api.UseMvc();
});
}